Andy Naylor Chants

[Publius Ovidius]

I'm confidently expecting to read Naylor's report on last night's game...

"Recent dismal performances by the Albion and a growing campaign against Knight and Wilkins meant that it was no surprise that Albion supporters greeted a shock 4-1 victory at Brisbane Road with complete silence.

"At no point in the game was it possible for anyone in the ground to hear any sound from the thousand or so travelling fans."

 

[ROSM]

I think this whole thing (and Gubbers additional thread on this) are really quite funny.

According to some, if you try and put a differing point of view to those who say something you dont agree with when they are less than positive about the club, then you are a sheep, licker etc.

Lets be realistic on this - there is some history between Knight and Naylor. I have seen it first hand and been caught up in the backlash from Naylor because of it. I'm not saying he has an agenda, but he wouldn't be human if he wasn't affected in some way but the stinging criticism he got from a number of quarters in the past.

Despite all this, I have no issue with his match reporting. I do have issue with opinion being presented as fact.

Let's be clear that many of his comments in the article on monday are based on his opinion or that of people he has spoken to.

There are many on here who say what he has written concurs with their views. That may well be the case - but their views may well have been influenced by what he has written previously in the first place. Ipso facto QED.

I dont have any problem with criticism and I do utterly refute comments that inidcate that people do on this. I have issue with poorly structured criticism based on incorrect assumption - just like that put forward by William Chops about finances.

I could (if I could be bothered) present a different view to any of the points raised by Naylor because ultimately they are interpretation rather than hard or fast fact. That's not to say i would be correct.

I think there are a minority who feel he was wrong to get rid of Gritt, there are also a minority who may feel that Hinshelwood was not backed (cant say I've met many who feel that way about the latter). But to say that these two points will overshadow the two championships and return to Brighton and Hove is purely subjective poppycock.

I'm sure Knight does want to know the team ahead of a weekend. We all do, fans, players, journalists. Why shouldn't the chairman? yes we all have an opinion (even if a tactical genius decides to play a winger at full back etc.) and we all voice it. Why wouldn't a chairman?

Does he get too involved in a number of playing matters? probably. is that the cause of where we are now? On it's own very unlikely.

Did he drag his heels in the transfer window? Strange one this because the only source of background to this accusation is a comment by NAYLOR in last weeks match report where he states we should have got Forster before he got back into the Hull first team. Well Andy try and see it this way: If the argus told you that you were out of favour and the only offer that came in for you was a move to a smaller regional daily, you may wait to see if a better offer comes in before a deadline 30 days away. If by some luck you gte back in favour with the Argus, would that be the fault of the smaller regional daily?

It is that innuendo which panders to those who only want to believe the negativity that affects my view of him.

 

[Kenhead]

I remeber when naylor sturred up a fuss that wicks was going to wolves which turned out to be totally untrue

 

[Skaville]

That piece was supposed to be match report. What he said about Dick Knight was opinion and a stupid, ill founded, irrelevant opinion at that. He is a sports journalist, not a columnist or a poster on NSC and his articles should reflect that.

The fact that the vast majority of the fans sung about him is fact. Perhaps the twat should write about that instead.

 

[Knotty]

I think this whole thing (and Gubbers additional thread on this) are really quite funny.

According to some, if you try and put a differing point of view to those who say something you dont agree with when they are less than positive about the club, then you are a sheep, licker etc.

Lets be realistic on this - there is some history between Knight and Naylor. I have seen it first hand and been caught up in the backlash from Naylor because of it. I'm not saying he has an agenda, but he wouldn't be human if he wasn't affected in some way but the stinging criticism he got from a number of quarters in the past.

Despite all this, I have no issue with his match reporting. I do have issue with opinion being presented as fact.

Let's be clear that many of his comments in the article on monday are based on his opinion or that of people he has spoken to.

There are many on here who say what he has written concurs with their views. That may well be the case - but their views may well have been influenced by what he has written previously in the first place. Ipso facto QED.

I dont have any problem with criticism and I do utterly refute comments that inidcate that people do on this. I have issue with poorly structured criticism based on incorrect assumption - just like that put forward by William Chops about finances.

I could (if I could be bothered) present a different view to any of the points raised by Naylor because ultimately they are interpretation rather than hard or fast fact. That's not to say i would be correct.

I think there are a minority who feel he was wrong to get rid of Gritt, there are also a minority who may feel that Hinshelwood was not backed (cant say I've met many who feel that way about the latter). But to say that these two points will overshadow the two championships and return to Brighton and Hove is purely subjective poppycock.

I'm sure Knight does want to know the team ahead of a weekend. We all do, fans, players, journalists. Why shouldn't the chairman? yes we all have an opinion (even if a tactical genius decides to play a winger at full back etc.) and we all voice it. Why wouldn't a chairman?

Does he get too involved in a number of playing matters? probably. is that the cause of where we are now? On it's own very unlikely.

Did he drag his heels in the transfer window? Strange one this because the only source of background to this accusation is a comment by NAYLOR in last weeks match report where he states we should have got Forster before he got back into the Hull first team. Well Andy try and see it this way: If the argus told you that you were out of favour and the only offer that came in for you was a move to a smaller regional daily, you may wait to see if a better offer comes in before a deadline 30 days away. If by some luck you gte back in favour with the Argus, would that be the fault of the smaller regional daily?

It is that innuendo which panders to those who only want to believe the negativity that affects my view of him.

Sums it up perfectly. I read the Naylor article with interest but always bearing in mind that they were his opinions - not necessarily facts.

So many statements are made on NSC that are given as facts when they are just opinions, guesses etc. So much uninformed and ill-informed nonsense.

If you know a situation is 100% true then you are entitled to criticise. If you don't, you're not!

 

[NMH]

I believe Naylor is trying to get some attention because he wants to be a journalist.

bless

 

[Beach Hut]

I thought what he wrote was quite good actually, nice to see some alternative views.

It is quite obvious with some of the u-turns on decisions not everything is right but the club has had the Falmer issue to deal with.

The sooner that goes the quicker the club can work on the simple factor of running a football club.

 

[El Presidente]

Is Andy the new Wayne Henderson?

 

[Beach Hut]

Is Andy the new Wayne Henderson?

Why, smutmeister ?

 

[El Presidente]

Why, smutmeister ?

Target for everyone to boo, until we have decided which of the new players (normal NSC time about 4 games) is totally useless and then subject to dog's abuse for the rest of their career at the club.

Andy is just a stand in, a bit like Tony Parks used to be at Blackburn every time a manager was sacked.

 

[Beach Hut]

Target for everyone to boo, until we have decided which of the new players (normal NSC time about 4 games) is totally useless and then subject to dog's abuse for the rest of their career at the club.

Andy is just a stand in, a bit like Tony Parks used to be at Blackburn every time a manager was sacked.

You could be right actually, thought Savage was heading for the "treatment" but guaranteed at least 5 games reprieve after last night.

Suspect Jakey is next in line for the abuse, where is Dessie when you need him ?

 

[El Presidente]

Suspect Jakey is next in line for the abuse, where is Dessie when you need him ?

Probably staring through Jake's window, with a pair of binoculars in one hand and a rolled up crusty sock in the other.

 

[Beach Hut]

Probably staring through Jake's window, with a pair of binoculars in one hand and a rolled up crusty sock in the other.

Oh dear Smutmeister, why am I not surprised by that comment

 

[El Presidente]

Oh dear Smutmeister, why am I not surprised by that comment

I am just painting pictures with words

 

[Beach Hut]

I am just painting pictures with words

But why so often, Herr Smutmeister ?

 

[El Presidente]

But why so often, Herr Smutmeister ?

Sexual frustration, my special lady friend keeps developing a puncture

 

[Beach Hut]

Sexual frustration, my special lady friend keeps developing a puncture

Finally outed the truth, you will feel better for this confession

 

[looney]

I have never before found Naylor worth the effort to commenton and is one of the reasons I stopped buying the Argus.

 

[El Presidente]

Finally outed the truth, you will feel better for this confession

It was you who sold her to me!

 

[Beach Hut]

It was you who sold her to me!

Your use of a total falsehood puts Ernest to shame.